On Gregory Lending Sin Several Controversial Issues

In the process of reform of the financial mechanism, the criminals use the oversight ofthe management systems of financial institutions and some companies, individual needs fordevelopment finance, Gregory lending of cash in financial institutions, credit funds throughvarious means, from which to seek profit. For the crime of criminal law additional sharkslending, around the offense constitutes a crime has been controversial aspects. This article bychoosing a more typical issue of the offense cases, described Gregory lending sin objectiveelements identified and ’standards. I hope to give future judicial practice in the handling ofsimilar cases to provide some meaningful reference.The full text is divided into four parts:The first section describes the main facts. Beautiful baby toy company heard partssupplier company A shortage of funds, two million of its own funds to the commercial priceand interest first delivered to Company A, the form of a "transaction deposit personal managernamed Ma U.S. dollar certificates of deposit to personal consumption "pledge to obtain in thename of the2million loan used to fill delivered to Company A funds. After A return of2.2million principal and interest, apart from the price of200,000yuan. The toy company failurescaused bank losses300000.The second part summarizes the cases of controversial views and the focus ofcontroversy. Three very different point of view, the crime of toys constitute Gregory lendingis that it does not constitute of Gregory lending sin There are five different reasons. Another,named Ma individuals also constitute a natural person crime is also controversial.Summarized cases of dispute involving legal dispute focuses on five, as security for loans tocredit funds?"Taking the specific meaning of" lending "? Second, in chronological order on the "taking" and "lending" is taking the former lending in? Its own funds and credit funds tobe confused with how to determine whether it constitutes a crime;, why of the crime of"Gregory"? Internal staff inform both belong to "illegal income" specific meaning; samecrime unit crime shall bear criminal responsibility also belongs to individual natural personscrime? Fifth, Gregory lending sin and crime of obtaining credit is the relationship? What’s thedifference?The third part is disputed in this case the focus of legal analysis. The range of creditfunds in the analysis Gregory lending sin,"taking" behavior and "lending" behavioridentification Gregory standards and illegal proceeds judge and is mainly responsible forpersonnel to the identification of the different identity-related crime, defrauding loans to thecrime and the crime differences and relations on the basis to clarify the toy company andnamed Ma acts of nature. Toy companies use named Ma pledged certificates of deposit toobtain a loan acts constitute the crime of taking the loan, its transaction deposit two milliondelivery of Company A lending behavior; Gregory lending others "taking financial institutions,credit funds, which the sentence is just the logical relationship between the surface of two acts,the behavior of people by taking loans used to Gregory lending, rather than taking the former,lending in the post. The toy company for the purpose of taking loan lending profit beforeGregory the borrower to others and then taking loans to the case of Gregory lending. As longas the behavior of interest rates higher than the lending section of the on-lending can reapspreads constitute the crime of usury. Illegal income and have many forms, not merely for theinterest differential, as long as it acts by Gregory lending revenue and yield are illegal income,illegal income of the toy company is not only the$80,000interest, but also should containcommercial promotions by lending20million; Wenyou is the unit crime shall bear criminalresponsibility, not named Ma natural person crime. Gregory lending crimes and the crime ofobtaining credit is a special law and common law.The fourth part is the conclusion. Through the use of a combination of theory with thecase of the main actors toy company constitute Gregory lending sin, not the manager of the company named Ma natural person crime, but Wenyou is directly responsible toy companycrime shall bear criminal responsibility.